Parshas
Vayakhel begins by relating that Moshe gathered together all of the Jews to
instruct them about observing Shabbos and building the Mishkan. Nineteen
verses later, after he concluded his instructions, the Torah relates that
the Jews left “from in front of Moshe.” As the Torah doesn’t write an
unnecessary letter, why was it necessary to emphasize a fact that should
have been obvious, as Moshe gathered them together at the beginning of the
parsha and they hadn’t gone anywhere in the interim?

Rav Eliyahu
Lopian explains that when encountering a person in the street, it is
generally impossible to discern from his appearance and actions where he is
coming from. The apparently superfluous wording is coming to indicate that
in this case, it was clear to any passerby that the Jews had just left the
presence of Moshe.

In what
way was this recognizable? Although they had just spent time learning about
Shabbos and the Mishkan, this factual knowledge wasn’t discernible to the
naked eye. Rather, their conduct with other people was on such a lofty level
that it was apparent that they had just been studying Torah.

The
Gemora in Yoma (86a) teaches that part of the mitzvah to love Hashemis to cause Him to be loved and praised through our actions. The Jews
who merited learning Torah directly from the mouth of Moshe reached such
levels in sensitivity and caring that anybody who saw them would immediately
understand from where it originated and would bless Hashem and His Torah for
producing such conduct.

This
lesson is illustrated in a story about the Brisker Rav, who was renowned for
his diligence and toil in the study of Torah. When his daughter once
returned home with an axe that she found, he realized that this was a golden
and rare opportunity to fulfill the mitzvah of returning a lost object to
its owner (Devorim 22:1-3). The Brisker Rav recognized that it belonged to a
man who lived several miles away on the edge of the forest. He took his
daughter and the axe and set out on the long, arduous journey. They finally
arrived at the owner’s home and knocked on his door.

The
Brisker Rav assumed that the owner would express his gratitude for their
efforts and exertion in returning his axe to him, but he was taken by
surprise by what happened next. When the man answered his door and realized
what had transpired, he was so moved by the Rav’s actions that he literally
bowed and prostrated himself on the ground, exclaiming, “Blessed is the
Jewish G-d Who has given His people a Torah which causes them to act with
such compassion and mercy!”

The message of
Parshas Vayakhel is that we should conduct ourselves in a manner which
loudly declares that we study the Torah and are elevated by it. The typical
person with whom we interact will not be able to discern this from the
number of penetrating insights we deliver into the words of the Ketzos or
the weekly Torah portion, but rather through our acts of kindness and
exemplary interpersonal conduct, which will sanctify the name of Hashem and
His Holy Torah.

Vayavo’u ha’anashim al ha’nashim (35:22)

The Daas
Z’keinim writes that in the merit of the women’s joyful and generous
contribution of their jewelry to the Mishkan, which stood in sharp contrast
to their refusal to donate their jewelry for the building of the golden calf
(32:2-3), they merited a personal holiday on Rosh Chodesh, on which they are
accustomed not to do work. Why is Rosh Chodesh uniquely suited as a reward
for their pious actions?

The Shemen HaTov
explains that the women in that generation repeatedly excelled in their
solid trust in Hashem and failure to give up hope even in the darkest
moments. In Egypt, the men succumbed to the back-breaking labor and
diabolical decrees of Pharaoh to kill their sons and despaired of the
future. Nevertheless, the women continued to hope, skillfully enticing their
husbands to help them bring more children into a world of pain and
uncertainty. They invoked this merit when they joyfully contributed the
mirrors which they had used for this purpose to the construction of the
Mishkan (Rashi 38:8).

Similarly, when the men miscalculated Moshe’s return from Mount Sinai and
fell prey to the Satan’s argument that Moshe had died, the women held out
hope and refused to take part in the sin of the golden calf. After this
tremendous national sin, it would have been easy and natural to give up
hope. Yet the Mishkan offered a new prospect for Divine closeness even in
this dark post-sin era, and it also represented Hashem’s forgiveness of the
sin of the golden calf (Rashi 38:21). Recognizing this tremendous and unique
opportunity to inject new life into the crestfallen and forlorn nation, the
women leaped into action to donate to the cause with great joy and
enthusiasm.

Rosh
Chodesh symbolizes the concept that when all appears bleak, one can trust in
a brighter future. Just when the moon disappears and the night sky seems
dark, the process of rebirth and renewal continues as the moon returns and
grows larger, reminding us of the lesson that the women always knew.

The Gemora in
Sanhedrin (29a) seeks a source for the claim that “whoever adds to something
actually takes away from it.” One opinion claims that this statement may be
derived from the Torah’s commandment to make the Aron 2.5 cubits long.
However, the Gemora is cryptically terse; how does one sees from here that
something which was added had the net effect of detracting from the original
amount?

Rashi explains
that the Torah requires the Ark to be amasayim va’chetzi arko – 2.5 cubits
in length. However, if the letter aleph wasn’t present, the Ark would need
to be masayim va’chetzi arko– 200.5
cubits – significantly longer. Therefore, by adding the letter aleph, the
overall size of the Ark was actually reduced!

However, the
Maharsha challenges Rashi’s explanation by pointing out that if the letter
aleph is removed, the Torah no longer specifies to which units of
measurement it refers. The verse would require the Ark to be 200.5 long, but
there would be no way of knowing with which units this should be measured.
It would be quite possible that it would be measured using a smaller unit
than cubits, such that 200.5 of the smaller units would actually be less
than 2.5 cubits. In this case, adding the letter aleph would have the effect
of increasing the size of the Ark, and the Gemora’s claim couldn’t be
derived from here.

The Vilna Gaon
brilliantly suggests an alternative understanding of the Gemora’s
derivation. Unlike Rashi, he explains that the Gemora refers to the addition
of the letter vov at the beginning of the word va’chetzi. In the absence of
this letter, the verse would read amasayim chetzi arko – two cubits is half
of the length of the Ark. In other words, the Ark would have been four
cubits long, but by adding the letter vov, its length was reduced to 2.5
cubits, thereby providing an ideal source for the Gemora’s claim that adding
on to something actually takes away from it!

Parsha Points to Ponder
(and sources which discuss them):

1)The Torah records (35:10) that Moshe commanded the
“wise of heart” to make everything necessary for the Mishkan. Hashem earlier
told Moshe (31:6) that He had placed wisdom into the hearts of those are
wise to allow them to do so. From this latter verse the Gemora in Berachos
(55a) derives that Hashem only gives wisdom to one who already possesses it.
How did these wise-hearted individuals escape the apparent catch-22, and
from where did they attain their initial wisdom? (Baal HaTurim 28:3, Nefesh
HaChaim 4:5, Sichos Mussar, Atarah L’Melech pg. 133)

2)Rashi writes (35:27) that the ðùéàéí – tribal
leaders – were punished by the removal of the letter “yud” from their
titles. They decided that after the people had completed their contributions
for the building of the Mishkan, they would donate whatever was missing. Why
wasn’t Moshe similarly punished for his lack of contribution to the Mishkan
(see Vayikra Rabba 1:6), and to the contrary, Rashi writes (39:33) that
because Moshe hadn’t participated in the Mishkan, Hashem miraculously
arranged that nobody should be able to erect it except for Moshe in order to
give him a part in its construction? (Mishmeres Ariel and Tal’lei Oros
Parshas Vayikra)

3)Rashi writes (35:27) that the ðùéàéí – tribal
leaders – were punished by the removal of the letter “yud” from their
titles. They decided that after the people completed their contributions for
the Mishkan, they would donate whatever was missing. Why did they
specifically lose the letter “yud?”? (Kli Yakar, Chiddushei HaRim, Emunas
Itecha, Outlooks and Insights Parshas Terumah)

4)As the Mishkan is considered to be a microcosm of the
entire universe, its building and assembly should be similar to the creation
of the world in Parshas Bereishis. What parallels can you find between the
two? (Ohr Gedalyahu)